Doug Kellogg

The coronavirus crisis has led to a lot of changes for occupational licensing.

Suddenly, states have recognized out-of-state licenses for health care workers like nurses and doctors, in order to bring in needed help for the frontlines. For similar reasons, a number of states have relaxed requirements for people trained in health care fields to get their initial license.

The pandemic shined a spotlight on licensing hurdles that were getting in the way of workers fighting coronavirus.

Of course, in normal times, that is the point of occupational licensing. Often driven by political favoritism, these rules restrict work by placing barriers between people and jobs. Barriers that can be very arbitrary, and costly – which has a pernicious effect on low-income workers and people starting off a career.

Now that it has been made clear how damaging licensing rules are for workers and movement between states, it is the perfect time for lawmakers to remove these burdens.

One great way to do that is universal recognition, meaning if someone has earned and maintained license in good standing in “state A”, that license is recognized in “state B”, and they can work in their new state without starting from scratch to earn a new license for the same profession.

If doctors and nurses who require extensive training can go from one state to another, cosmetologists, barbers, landscapers, and alike surely can as well.

Arizona and Missouri have passed universal recognition already, and North Carolina and Ohio currently have similar bills pending.

These states are great examples of the negative impact of licensing, and how to act to address that problem.

According to an Institute for Justice study, the cost of licensing to Ohio amounts to 67,000 jobs and over $209 million lost. Meanwhile over $6 billion in resources have been misallocated.

On North Carolina, IJ reports, “It takes just 39 days of training to earn a license as an emergency medical technician in North Carolina, but substantially more to become a licensed manicurist (70 days), massage therapist (117), skin care specialist (140), cosmetologist (350) or barber (722). Occupations like these, where training required does not line up with public safety concerns, make possible targets for reform.”

Ohio embarked on a path of reform in 2018, passing a landmark sunset review process for licenses that requires licensing boards to recommend which licenses should be eliminated, and which should be retained. The burden of proof is on the boards, as they must prove a license is critical to public safety to keep it. Licenses that the legislature does not vote to keep eventually sunset.

The Buckeye State also passed licensing reciprocity for military spouses, Senate Bill 7, signed into law by Gov. DeWine this year.

Now, House Bill 432 sponsored by Rep. Jena Powell, and its Senate companion sponsored by Sen. Kristina Roegner and Sen. Rob McColley, offer the chance for full universal recognition.

The state’s think tank, the John Locke Foundation, writes, “Let’s not forget that occupational licensing reform has long been a bipartisan issue. In recent years “red” and “blue” states alike have made significant licensing reforms. In fact, one of the strongest cases for reforming occupational licensing was made in a 2016 white paper by the Obama/Biden administration.”

Both the Trump and Obama administration have recommended licensing reform to the states.

North Carolina is not stopping there, more licensing reform proposals are also on the table, including a sunset review process similar to Ohio’s.

This is the kind of comprehensive approach that will make Ohio and North Carolina more friendly to workers, especially people starting out new careers, and moving in from other states.

It shouldn’t take a pandemic to show how restrictive occupational licensing is, but since it has, taxpayers should urgently support reform that gets these arbitrary government barriers to work out of the way.

Last week, the Oklahoma legislature overwhelmingly passed protections for free speech and citizen privacy, as the Personal Privacy Protection Act sailed through the Senate, having passed the House earlier in the year. UPDATE: Governor Stitt signed the bill this week.

This is a critical step to protect Oklahomans who contribute to causes they believe in. We continue to see efforts to undermine the right to free speech with aggressive state laws that expose private citizens’ personal information, with the effect of chilling speech.

These aggressive laws go far beyond the usual political campaign regulation, undermining the ability of citizens to effectively engage with their legislators and even give to educational groups.

Whether it is the rise of Antifa, Democrat Presidential candidate Joaquin Castro publishing the personal and business information of contributors to the Trump campaign, or story after story of unionintimidation, it is clear that if people’s personal information is revealed, hyper-political interests will abuse that information.

Oklahomans who contribute to non-profit educational groups, advocacy organizations, and alike, should have their privacy protected. They should applaud their legislators for getting protections over the finish line during a difficult time, especially the bill's sponsors, Rep. Terry O'Donnell, Sen. Kim David, Rep. Lewis Moore, Rep. Mark Lepak, Rep. Jay Steagall, Sen. Micheal Bergstrom.

Oklahoma joins West Virginia, Mississippi, Arizona, and most recently Utah, as states who have enacted these vital measures. Tennessee has a chance to join Oklahoma by passing HB 2665/SB 2886 if and when they return to session, as does Louisiana with HB 303.

New York State is in the middle of an unprecedented crisis – the coronavirus pandemic. New York City is one of the epicenters of the outbreak in the U.S.

Government is not immune, as multiple state legislators have tested positive for COVID-19, adding Senator James Seward to the list on Monday. Despite all this, state lawmakers still have a budget deadline of April 1 (though rules to allow remote voting could add flexibility to that).

New York’s standard budget process is not exactly transparent, with closed-door negotiations and dysfunctional committees. This year, it has become more mysterious as the capitol building has been cleared out to stop the spread of coronavirus.

On top of that, what was already a massive $6 billion budget gap, is now estimated to be $15 billion due to coronavirus’ impact on the state economy.

Major threats at the start of session included an “ultra” millionaire’s tax, destruction of the independent contractor system (following the lead of California’s AB 5), and a digital services tax (similar to Maryland’s ill-advised policy).

While the last thing government should be doing is taking more of people’s hard-earned money when they need it in a crisis, that does not mean the temptation is not there. Many legislators remain interested in adding new tiers to the millionaire’s tax.

Left-leaning groups like Vocal-NY, the Working Families Party, Indivisible, and Citizen Action, are pushing for any millionaire’s tax hike proposal to pass. A long list of these organizations and others just sent a letter to Gov. Cuomo and leadership urging adoption of two bills from Sen. Robert Jackson which would enact ultra-millionaire’s taxes. One of which is a $4.5 billion tax hike that creates new high-tax rate brackets for people earning over $1 million, $5 million, $10 million, and $100 million annually.

Even this massive tax hike does not come close to closing a $15 billion gap, or even close the initial $6 billion gap – and that’s assuming everyone it targets would stay put and pay, an unlikely scenario.

A proposal to create a digital services tax (S6102/A9112) has not gained momentum. This awful concept would impose extra costs on businesses that would hammer consumers too, while triggering legal challenges as it violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

As Empire Center’s E.J. McMahon outlines, New York’s heavy reliance on capital gains taxes leaves the state vulnerable to significant revenue loss. Post-coronavirus, “the decrease in capital gains income is likely to be more on the order of 40 to 50 percent”, McMahon writes.

New York cannot make the tax environment worse. It is already too burdensome, ranking first for state and local tax burden and collections, according to the Tax Foundation. The state’s affordability crisis has driven a massive exodus, and population loss in recent years.

Gov. Cuomo has not expressed interest in increasing taxes, and his budget proposal maintains middle class income tax cuts that passed a few years ago with a multi-year phase-in plan.

Legislators must hold the line on tax increases to avoid driving more people to leave the state. The federal emergency coronavirus bill will send around $40 billion to New York State. U.S. taxpayers are already sacrificing. Though this money is aimed at coronavirus related costs, it does also include $1 billion for education.

Unfortunately, one set of regulations that has not been relaxed is California’s misguided attack on independent contractors, AB5, a model that Governor Cuomo sought to emulate in New York.

There is no excuse to pursue this policy after its disastrous consequences have been made clear by California Untold numbers of jobs have been lost, some through layoffs at outlets like Vox and SB Nation, others as California freelancers lose work and clients, potentially forcing them to leave the state. California has also been sued over AB5 by the American Society for Journalists and Authors (ASJA).

With many industries having exemptions to the law, trucking companies getting a restraining order on complying, and now a successful effort to place an initiative on the ballot that would reform the law, it is clearly a failure.

Legislation to recreate this disaster in New York, S6699A, has not moved, and legislators should keep this job-killing proposal stalled.

Also on the labor front, Gov. Cuomo proposed a reckless expansion of the state’s prevailing wage law into private construction. This is a direct attack on non-union options that will cut them out of projects, and drive up costs for taxpayers in the process. Firms will be driven out of business, and jobs will be lost at a time when New York desperately needs more of both.

This would be triggered if only 30% of funding comes from government incentives – not even direct spending. Worse, a board appointed by the Governor could change the rules.

Unshackle Upstate is leading opposition efforts, and highlighted a Weitzman Group analysis that found “an expanded prevailing wage mandate will increase private construction costs by an average of 30%.”

Medicaid was a major factor driving the $6 billion gap, and remains in need of reform. The Governor charged a task force with finding savings in Medicaid, their sensible recommendations still only amount to a $1.9 billion reduction in spending growth, Bill Hammond with Empire Center explains.

To deal with the gap, Medicaid will have to be cut further, as will education spending.

New York consistently increases education aid in its annual budget, and despite spending among the most per-pupil gets middling outcomes. The education establishment demanded billions of dollars in aid increases this year, while Governor Cuomo proposed spending over $800 million.

Some trimming will be needed, but again, the federal response allots over $1 billion for education.

Also keep an eye out for Governor Cuomo’s effort to use a “climate emergency” to take away localities’ ability to determine taxes and approvals for wind and solar projects.

The deck is already stacked in favor of these projects being imposed on localities in New York. But under the changes highlighted in a recent New York Post op-ed by Jonathan Lesser with the Manhattan Institute, taxes would be determined by the state and local government could impose no rules or restrictions on where wind turbines or solar facilities could be built.

There is much at stake as New York’s final budget comes together in the most difficult of circumstances. Protecting taxpayers will best prepare the state to recover economically as coronavirus subsides.

The Kentucky legislature is taking its second swing at legalizing sports betting after striking out last session.

Last year’s bill was perfectly good, with very competitive tax rates. That carries over to this year’s effort. The current bill, House Bill 137, would legalize sports wagering with a tax rate on in-person bets of 10.25%, and 14.25% for online.

These rates could certainly be lower, Nevada and Iowa have tax rates of just 6.25%. Still, they are solid, as tax rates on bets over 15% start to reduce betting activity. For legislators interested in using revenues to cover pension fund shortfalls, this should be of particular concern.

Kentucky should be looking to be as competitive as possible on taxes and regulation now. Sure, some of their neighbors might be pushovers. Tennessee passed one of the least competitive sports betting bills in the nation – with high tax rates, and unnecessary, costly giveaways to leagues. And Illinois’ 15% tax rate on bets remains one of the highest in the country (still behind Tennessee’s 20% though).

Yet, Indiana has very consumer and market-friendly sports betting laws, with a 9.5% tax rate on gross gaming revenues. It’s why they’ve been trouncing another neighbor, Illinois, on sports betting numbers. West Virginia also maintains a competitive 10% tax rate on revenues. Also, Ohio continues to inch toward action on sports betting, which would bring more competition to the table.

As is, Kentucky’s legislation can compete on taxes, but amendments proposed by Representative Petrie would drive those rates to a sky-high 29.25% for in-person bets, and 42.25% for digital. Petrie also proposed an amendment allowing local governments to bar sports betting and fantasy sports.

Needless to say, these proposals would kill sports betting if they somehow were attached to the bill.

While legislators fight off bad policy on taxes, there is language already in HB 137 that deserves a look.

The bill includes a provision that would allow sports leagues to approve or disapprove in-game betting. Even if you think in-game betting deserve extra scrutiny, there is no reason to think sports leagues alone can or should provide it.

Another provision would force sports betting operators to share data and information on betting activity with sports leagues. There is already information sharing with government regulators, and the operators themselves have the most incentive to maintain betting integrity and root out bad actors. Adding the burden of sharing this information with leagues only drives up costs for businesses, and does not improve integrity.

While less ridiculous than some policies discussed in other states – like direct payments to leagues (a.k.a. “integrity fees”), or mandates that betting operators must use official league data – these policies seem designed to give sports leagues power over other businesses for no reason.

Like the Astros, some sports leagues seem very interested in rigging the game to benefit themselves. Legislators should not give in and make government a willing accomplice.

Kentucky has a solid starting point on sports betting taxes, legislators should reject the bad ideas still on the table, and craft a final product that will help Bluegrass State sports betting industry compete and win.

Despite its welcoming tax environment, and the “Florida Man” jokes that make it seem like anything goes in the Sunshine State, Florida is a bureaucratic nightmare when it comes to occupational licensing.

The state currently has the fifth most burdensome licensing laws in the U.S., according to the Institute for Justice.

Government should not place unnecessary barriers between people and jobs. It’s commonsense. Licenses, where they exist at all, should clearly be necessary to protect public safety – and the burden to prove this should be on licensing boards.

The reforms Governor DeSantis has proposed are likely the most sweeping set of reforms pitched in a state at one time. They would address the state’s licensing problem, and make it easier for Floridians, especially people just starting careers, to find work.

Governor DeSantis has said in discussing his reform package, “If you did nothing, it seemed like government would always get bigger. And that was the default. I think the default should be that if you do nothing, then government actually gets smaller because that means that we have more freedom and opportunity.”

The biggest proposed reform addresses this point. It is a sunset review process that would require the legislature to review the state’s occupational licenses (with some exceptions), and licensing boards would have to make the case as to why any licenses they wish to keep are required to protect to public safety.

Licenses that are not affirmatively approved during the process would automatically end, or “sunset.” Meaning anyone could then engage in that profession or trade without having to go through onerous testing and pay fees. Ohio was the first state to pass a version of this reform in late 2018, setting a great example for other states to follow.

The Governor’s reforms include immediately exempting some professions from existing licensing requirements, and changing interior design from a profession that requires a license to a voluntary certification.

Voluntary certifications make far more sense for professions where someone may want to demonstrate their ability to meet a set of standards, but where there is no need to outright bar people from practicing if they don't jump through hoops.

The Governor’s proposals also seek to allow Floridians licensed in one county to have that license recognized in another county. Yes, Florida licensing is currently so absurd that even counties within the state do not universally recognize other county licenses. Fixing this is a great step, which hopefully can soon be followed by interstate reciprocity, as we’ve seen in Arizona.

Another key change would be preventing the state licensing authority from barring people with student debt problems from getting a license. It’s counterproductive to punish someone with student loan debt by preventing them from earning money to pay back that debt. Even after covering all of these cutting edge reforms, there is more to the Governor’s proposal.

Governor DeSantis and Florida legislators deserve a lot of credit for leading on this issue, and getting government out of the way of Floridians who are looking for work, and starting businesses.

This approach is how you take a state that is already great on taxes, and make it even more friendly for workers and employers.

Until recently, few people had heard of the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), the compact of 12 states agreeing impose a cap and trade program on transportation fuels. Now, after the program released the first details on what it would do to accomplish its goals, the uber-expensive gas tax scheme is becoming controversial.

States are getting a good look at the high costs TCI promises to impose on residents, for little environmental benefit. Here are some of the big reasons why TCI is expensive, ineffective, and unpopular…

It is a costly new gas tax:

TCI could impose a $56 billion annual gas tax on participating states. According to TCI’s own numbers, the impact on gas prices could be as much as a 17-cents-per-gallon.

The hefty cost won’t come close to keeping enough cars off the road to reach its goals.Research shows it takes more extreme increases in gas prices to reduce demand for driving. That means the actual added costs on gas could be four times higher than the initial TCI estimates.

The cost of carbon implied by TCI is $2,700 per ton, but the existing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) price is $6 per ton. Based on the program’s proposed $45 billion cost to cut 16.5 million tons of CO2 emissions, the TCI cost of carbon is $2,700 per metric ton – compare that to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s $6 per ton cost for an emissions allowance.

Pennsylvania’s gas tax is already the 2nd-highest in the nation. Already-overburdened families would get hit with an additional yearly cost of $210 per household under TCI.

Everyone will pay more for goods. Every Pennsylvanian, even the few non-drivers, would get hit with higher costs as goods shipped to the state by truck, will cost more to absorb the artificially inflated gas price.

It won’t do much for the environment:

TCI will have a minimal impact on emissions, as low as a 1% reduction. TCI documents claim a small 1-6% reduction in emissions from the program, meanwhile emissions will already be reduced by 19% due to existing policy.

TCI’s impact on temperatures would be too small to measure. Using the same modeling system as the U.N., Dr. Brent Bennett with Life:Powered found TCI’s impact on temperatures would be less than one thousandth of a degree.

TCI overstates health benefits. Even the EPA’s most rosy scenario for its similar “Affordable Clean Energy Rule” is only one fifth the value claimed by TCI.

Helps rich electric vehicle drivers. TCI might do more for well-off electric vehicle drivers than it does for the environment. They would pay lower fuel costs, and get to drive in HOV lanes in even more heavily-subsidized EVs. Meanwhile those who can least afford to pay more for a necessity, get hit with more expensive gas.

The Michigan Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration released long-awaited recommendations last week to reform the state’s overcrowded jails. Michigan’s jail populations have rapidly gone up, a sign of a system that is not delivering the public safety, justice, and efficiency that people deserve.

In 2017, taxpayers spent an estimated $478 million on county jails. It’s not just that high costs are unaffordable for taxpayers, but they are a warning sign that too many people are being jailed, often for bad reasons, and reform is needed.

The data-driven recommendations from the Joint Task Force on Jail and Pretrial Incarceration offer an extensive set of reforms needed to create the more efficient, effective, and affordable jails that Michigan communities deserve.

The reforms include:

Ending the practice of suspending driver’s licenses for offenses that aren’t related to safe driving, like owed court debt. Driving without a valid license was the third most common reason for admissions to a correctional facility. Reform in this area would mean people can get to work to pay their fines, and don’t rack up criminal charges and lose the ability to hold a job because of a lack of means.

Decriminalizing low-level traffic misdemeanors. Low level offenses that currently entangle people in the criminal system that pose no risk to the community can be better handled by traffic courts.

Taking into account one’s ability to pay when imposing fines. Fines are meant to be a punishment first, not a revenue raising tool. It makes sense to limit the amount of fines to something an offender can reasonably be expected to pay. Imposing an exorbitant fine that an offender can never reasonably pay ties them to the criminal justice system in perpetuity.

Diversion for behavioral, mental health issues. With addiction driving so many people into jails, diversion that gets people with mental health and addiction issues into programs that can help is a needed reform.

More alternatives to arrest for police officers. Allowing officers to use appearance tickets when arrest and jail are not warranted for the suspected crime is a smart step that empowers police, and avoids pulling people into the jail system unnecessarily.

Caps on jail time for technical parole violations. The possibility of being jailed is important to incentivize people who are on parole to keep up with their obligations. However, that should be weighed against the unintended consequences (losing a job for instance) for otherwise well-behaved parolees.

Defendants must be tried within 18 months of arrest. Ensuring the justice system delivers speedy trials and people are not left in jail for extended periods of time is a win for liberty and safety. Extended jail time can make people more likely to commit future crimes.

Improved data collection. It is vital taxpayers know what is happening in the criminal justice system. Better data collection accomplishes this, and it is also critical to tracking the impact of reforms. If something is not working as anticipated, citizens and legislators should know quickly, and be able to act with confidence.

There are a couple areas that are left to counties that will be important for the counties to implement in the right way. The task force recommends bail reform, with release unless the court determines that a defendant poses a risk to the community, themselves, a flight risk, or has committed certain crimes (violent or against children). Counties will have to ensure effective risk assessment fills in where reliance on cash bail is reduced to ensure public safety is not put at risk.

Michigan residents have every reason to be excited about the task force recommendations. Now, the road to reform turns toward hammering out legislation. ATR looks forward to working with the legislature to ensure the best version of these proposals becomes law.

"It may be a new year, but the same policy debates from last year continue in Trenton. The first major item on the agenda is borrowed directly from California’s uber-liberal policy playbook, legislation that would aggressively redefine what qualifies as an independent contractor.

It’s one thing to want to address cases of wage theft, or an issue in a specific business sector. But it is far different to radically alter the state’s economy, business climate, and employment opportunities, with a blatant giveaway to big labor..." Read the full article on Save Jersey HERE.

That pesky constitution just keeps getting in the way of blatant attempts by state lawmakers to cripple free speech, and attack citizen groups and non-profit advocacy organizations.

A bill (S1500) passed in New Jersey that would force donor disclosure for citizen groups that weighed in on state legislation has been blocked by a federal judge. The bill would also affect independent expenditure organizations, or PACs.

The legislation was driven by a drawn-out controversy. Governor Murphy was under duress due to his use of non-profit entities to advance his agenda. Rather than focusing on a narrow issue – sitting public officials informally running non-profits – opportunistic legislators seized their chance to stifle free speech and citizen advocacy much more broadly.

Even Murphy initially opposed the bill he eventually signed because of constitutional concerns. Well, now that has been proven correct, as the state was sued successfully by Americans for Prosperity. American Civil Liberties Union-NJ, the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters also filed lawsuits.

The Supreme Court case Alabama v. NAACP already upheld the right to privacy of non-profits against state disclosure mandates.

The broad opposition from across the ideological spectrum shows just how significant an attack on the First Amendment New Jersey’s law is, and remains as there is plenty of damage to be done if the law is updated by the legislature, even with this decision.

Of course, unions are exempt from the disclosure mandate, the predictable special treatment for a political powerhouse shows how insincere the motives are behind the disclosure push.

Such legislation would set a dangerous precedent for future regulation of advocacy groups. The massive restriction on non-profit organizations would make it difficult for an average individual to create an organization. It would also equate educating the public about active legislation with direct spending on political candidates.

Disclosure mandates would make donors subject to retribution, harassment, and possibly worse. In today’s polarizing political environment, the preservation of free speech is even more important. This chilling infringement on the first amendment would discourage the free exchange of ideas, limiting constituents’ ability to hold their elected officials accountable. Which is ironic: a law touted as being a remedy for corruption would make it worse in reality.

Although many in the Garden State may see a problem with the non-profit run by Governor Murphy’s allies, unconstitutional restrictions on free speech for everybody else is not a solution, and in fact would enable corruption in Trenton.

For people who have paid their penalties, and served their time in the criminal justice system, rejoining society can be a major challenge. The stigma of a conviction, even for nonviolent and misdemeanor offenders, can follow them as they try to build a new life.

They should have a chance to earn trust again, rather than being relegated to second class citizenship and punished far beyond what was intended. It’s not just the right thing to do, but smart policy that reduces recidivism, and strengthens families and communities. Making it easier to expunge certain crimes offers that opportunity.

A study from University of Michigan law school researchers found people’s wages went up by 20 percent on average one year after expunging their record, and that former offenders who have expunged their records very rarely break the law.

Michigan is currently considering a number of commonsense “Clean Slate” criminal justice reform bills that would expand expungement, and make the process automatic in some cases for people who have not reoffended – HB 4980, HB 4981, HB 4982, HB 4983.

While Michigan has expungement, it does not allow for records to be automatically expunged, usually known as “Clean Slate”. The state allows a person with a felony offense and no more than two misdemeanor offenses to petition to expunge the felony offense. Someone with two misdemeanor offenses and no felony offenses can expunge the misdemeanor offenses.

HB 4980 would mean an eligible offense is automatically expunged. A variety of crimes from sexual assault and violent crimes, to serious misdemeanors (like breaking and entering) would not be eligible. It requires that ten years have passed since the date of any sentence has been completed, and restitution has been paid. A person could not have more than two felonies or four misdemeanors automatically set aside.

Ten years is a significant amount of time. Justice Department figures show that re-arrest for former nonviolent offenders is very rare five or more years after release.

HB 4981 would make it possible to expunge some traffic offenses, but not serious ones like drunk driving, or if injury is caused, or if someone causes an accident while driving without a license. Currently, no traffic-related crimes can even be expunged in Michigan, which is onerous. The waiting period to apply for expungement would be reduced from five to four years following completion of any sentence.

HB 4982 would simply allow for the expungement of any misdemeanor marijuana-related offenses that are no longer a crime following the passage of Proposal 1 last year – a state voter initiative that legalized adult-use marijuana.

HB 4983 reduces the waiting period to petition to expunge a misdemeanor offense from five to three years. The waiting period for a felony offense would remain at five years.

People who have proven they have learned from their crimes should have the chance to leave that past behind, build new lives, and become full, contributing members of their communities. The opportunity to clear one’s record is an important incentive for people to avoid committing another crime later. That’s why these bills are so important as the end of this year’s session nears in Michigan.